Why Bibi Should’ve Stayed Home

Yesterday, on Yom Kippur, the satirical paper The Onionposted an article with a headline “Glowing Ahmadinejad: ‘I Am the Nuclear Weapon We’ve Been Building.’” Last week, the New York Post reportedly sent a Jewish-themed welcome basket filled with gefilte fish and Zabar’s cream cheese to the Iranian leader upon his arrival in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. The Atlanticfeatures an “Iran War Dial” on its website.

Satire can be a powerful weapon, but these are all examples of how ubiquitous and casual the talk about Iran nuclear’s program has become. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ascends the podium at the United Nations General Assembly today to deliver another speech about Iran’s genocidal motives, one of the major challenges he faces is reaching a world audience that has become desensitized to the Iranian threat precisely because there’s been so much talk about it.

Of course, this is the opposite of what the Israeli leader—who has been arguing for over half a decade now that Iran’s leaders plan to eliminate Israel and are quickly approaching the means to do it—ever intended to do. But on the morning of seemingly his thousandth speech, a look back at previous years’ orations makes it hard to imagine what Netanyahu could say today that hasn’t already been said. One can’t help but wonder whether the most powerful message, the most convincing way to communicate to the world that the situation is more dire than ever, would have been for him to say nothing at all.

“It’s 1938, and Iran is Germany, and it’s racing to arm itself with nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said at the United Jewish Communities General Assembly in 2006, when he was Israel’s opposition leader during Ehud Olmert’s administration. “Same tendencies: to slander and vilify its victim in preparation for slaughter. Ahmadinejad takes his cue from Hitler, and no one cares. Every week he talks about erasing Israel from the map, and no one says anything. Sometimes the Jews don’t say that much. The big difference: is that Hitler embarked on the conflict and then tried to develop atomic weapons.”

At a “Keep Jerusalem United” rally in 2007, he warned that “the countdown to a nuclear Iran continues and time is running out. With what little time remains, we must redouble our efforts to influence world leaders and international public opinion to act with determination against Iran, including through much tougher and more painful economic sanctions. Of course, we must be prepared to practice what we preach.”

In 2009, shortly after being sworn in as prime minister, Netanyahu said this at Bar-Ilan University: “The Iranian threat still is before us in full force, as it became quite clear yesterday. The greatest danger to Israel, to the Middle East, and to all of humanity, is the encounter between extremist Islam and nuclear weapons.”

That same year at the United Nations, he declared that the “most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Speaking to Congress almost a year-and-a-half ago, Netanyahu said: “Now time is running out. The hinge of history may soon turn, for the greatest danger of all could soon be upon us: a militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.”

He followed that up at last year’s United Nations General Assembly by warning that if Iran’s nuclear program isn’t halted “the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter.”

Netanyahu is nothing if not an effective speaker. And his rhetoric surely has something to do with the fact that an international coalition—seemingly an oxymoronic term—has created one of the harshest sanctions regimes ever to put the squeeze to Iran. Today, almost half of Iran’s oil exports sit in tankers without destinations.

The problem may be that Netanyahu has been too effective for too long. His cherished role as Churchillian prophet has made the very real threat of a nuclear Iran something that, after years of alarm, no longer seems outrageous, but inevitable. There is a growing sense that most people have come to accept the idea of Iran going nuclear. Even though the matter still hangs in the balance, Netanyahu’s outspoken impatience has given the international community’s response the look of a bluff that’s been called.

By virtue of his tone—the red lines, the strike, the turning back of the clock—Netanyahu may have painted Israel (and others) into a corner. When he steps to the podium today, it’s tough to imagine what words might raise the temperature once again. Rather than submit to the circus—or “farce” as Netanyahu has called the United Nations in previous addresses—the stronger message would have been silence.

***

Like this article? Sign up for our Daily Digest to get Tablet Magazine’s new content in your inbox each morning.

Adam Chandler was previously a staff writer at Tablet. His work has appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, Slate, Esquire, New York, and elsewhere. He tweets @allmychandler.

WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at letters@tabletmag.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

The only one who should “shut up” is the columnist, who has no security clearance, and no knowledge of the real situation. Reckless and uninformed comments such as these may garner ink but they could endanger Jewish lives.

This article is a bit incoherent, I think. Keep silent and what? What exactly was the alternative that Adam Chandler suggested? Accept nuclear Iran? Just bomb Iran and hope for the best? I don’t know – he didn’t say!

And by the way, does he think that the sanctions have nothing to do with Bibi’s rhetorical and diplomatic campaign?

I think he’s done too much talking and that some have stopped taking the threat seriously. As I argued, I think he should not give a speech at the U.N. today. It would be an effective way to show that he’s fed up.

I think he’s done too much talking and that some have stopped taking the threat seriously. As I argued, I think he should not give a speech at the U.N. today. It would be an effective way to show that he’s fed up.

Pundits are pussies. Leaders have to make decisions and lead. Pundits are always in perfect position to comment from the sidelines and perpetually create “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dichotomies. Heaven forbid, if things go wrong, instead of mourning the dead, the pundits will be employing 20-20 hindsight to evaluate the leadership of persons they could never themselves rise to become.

I believe you are missing the point. By comming, Bibi further embaresses Obama. Obama had to drop his meeting with Morsi and not meet with any other heads of state. Of course Bibis presence is meaningless. It will change nothing. But it does show the smallness of Obama and will serve as a final warning to Iran and the world. If Israel strikes, they can be no worse off than before (alone). And an Iranian nuc, in 6 months or 6 years is a threat that NO nation should have to tolerate.

It’s obviously a very complicated situation…. … and well-written. The writer leaves out some humility; such as mentioning, “I’m just a columnist of course, and I don’t have the intel Netanyahu has so I don’t have a clue if his posturing is necessary or not; just guessing…and the other has been mentioned in another post…..So what is the alternative? A nuclear Iran? They’ve already told the world what they plan to do with that Nuke. I’d write an article if Netanyahu was silent about that on why in the crap is he so silent. I’m just glad I’m not in Bibi’s situation; but not half as glad as I am the columnist is not I’d like to see Israel still on the map for a long while. With no guesswork from those without the same intel that Bibi obviously has.

My wife’s uncle, a camp survivor who fought in ’48, was a gentle man who, whenever we visited him in Bnei Brak, had nothing but kind words and a positive disposition towards everyone or everything we might have discussed. The only negative thing we ever head him say, when the talk came up about Netanyahu, was “that man is a liar.”

Well, he is an imposing figure – but also a total failure. Evaluate him coolly: he despised the common people, went over to the enemy, then reneged on the enemy, got himself killed – and a good number of his fellow-citizens in the invasion he brought upon them. And all for what? Because he loved his own honour too well.

I try to follow Lord Acton’s dictum when dealing with history: “Judge talent and its best and character at its worst”. (Not a good maxim in private life, by the way). By this combined measure I find Coriolanus severely lacking.

Saint_Etiene: Yea, I do agree with U somehow. Yes, he loved his honor? Who doesn’t?
‘…reneged on the enemy’ ,let’s not forget the role of Mother and son, and probably wife. You would do anything for these three people when they appealed to you together!
Yea, he despised the common people. But he is true to himself and his fellow citizens. He would not hide behind positions just to win favors even though he is willing to accept ‘negotiations’.
Thanks for the insights-I have not had the opportunity to discuss this character with anybody.

Kerry, good that your wife’s uncle was a “zadek”! But, your current effort to tar Prime Minister Netanyahu is in itself hearsay invective! It might perhaps be that Prime Minister Netanyahu has indeed told a lie or some lies, but why not be specific? If you wish to make a particular allegation about Prime Minister Netanyahu, let’s hear the details so that we can make up our own minds. For sure, I have previously encountered some Israelis and Jewish Americans with strong prejudicial views about Prime Minister Netanyahu. And, I regularly ask them for some chapter and verse, which is seldom provided. However, let us note that these last few years, a fair bit of public-opinion polling has demonstrated that, among Jewish Americans, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s approval rate is as high or even higher than that of President Obama, who also regularly enjoys strong support among Jewish Americans. In fact, public-opinion polling from 2010 and 2011 seems to suggest that most Jewish Americans did not then perceive contradiction in simultaneously supporting both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama.

As a Canadian Jew (i.e. neither Republican nor Democrat), permit me to comment on the Adam Chandler article, which I believe to be the screed of an Obamist lackey. Left-liberal Democrats, acolytes of “the dear leader,” the Obami, have been feverishly out to trash Benjamin Netanyahu from the moment he became Prime Minister of Israel in March 2009. Instead of trying to undermine the legitimately-elected government of Israel, Adam Chandler had better focus his attention on “Neville Chamberlain” Obama, who is carefully playing his cards so as to screw Israel, in the exact same way that Czechoslovakia was betrayed at Munich on September 30, 1938. President Obama’s ultimate aim is probably to trade off Israel’s nuclear weapons for those of Iran. President Obama seeks to set up the “rules of the game” so that Israel loses no matter what transpires. Israel launches an early preemptive strike? President Obama will surely find a way to punish Israel severely! Israel waits for USA diplomacy to run its slow, stupid course? President Obama will structure the outcome so as to achieve a stunning diplomatic, strategic and/or military defeat for Israel! Just look at the Islam-obsessed UN General Assembly speech that Obama delivered on September 25th. There, Iran’s race to nuclear weapons appeared as something of an afterthought in an address devoted largely to apologizing to Muslims for some crazy YouTube posted by an Egyptian expatriate. What about the famous “pivot to Asia”? Why didn’t President Obama’s speech have anything to say about China’s growing threat to all of its maritime neighbors? What about the current world economic slowdown? But these key elements were glaringly absent. This prompts the question: Why is President Obama so preoccupied with Islam? Answer: Only the politically correct are too obtuse to find the correct response. It is outrageous to have this Adam Chandler attack on Prime Minister Netanyahu at a time when the lives of the 6 million Jews of Israel are at stake. Prime Minister Netanyahu needs to speak out at the UN, if only for the historical record. Left-liberal Obami live in a parallel universe where they imagine a new type of international relations, entirely unknown to Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao and other world leaders. This is relatively easy because President Obama barely bothers to cultivate relationships with his foreign counterparts. Thus, he cannot even begin to fathom how they think. Similarly, Adam Chandler’s article shows that he knows practically nothing about history and international relations. We are already at the 11th hour and we have to read this Democratic Party propaganda from the pen of Adam Chandler.

“As a Canadian Jew (i.e. neither Republican nor Democrat)…” . What nonsense. Why do you attack President Obama if you do not wish to take sides? I question whether you really are who you say you are: I say that you’re likely an American, a Republican, and you care not one whit about any other issue in the election., A 1%er, perhaps?

Better to first google my name before making unsubstantiated charges about the bonafides of my identity! President Obama has done plenty to arouse the strong opposition of Jews, whether in Israel or other countries. Though I cannot vote in the USA election, I am not neutral and certainly have no obligation to refrain from expressing my keen disappointment in President Obama, who clearly has a peculiarly problematic relationship to the Jewish People and Israel. There is only one Jewish State, but there will be plenty of other USA elections. At a time when six million Israel Jews are grappling with the dire threat of Iran’s race to nuclear weapons, you will appreciate that I insist on placing their safety above the domestic issues that you imagine to be at stake in your upcoming presidential vote.

I’m an American registered Independent and I thought your letter was terrific. It’s way ahead of its time as far as reaching liberal Jews. My concern is that if Obama is re-elected and fails even more, Jews are going to be blamed for putting him in office.

Beatrix, President Obama has “failed” (a premise I do not accept) it’s only because he has political opponents who have paralyzed Congress with their declared intent of obstructing everything and anything this President wants to do. This is no unfounded accusation: this was a documented statement by John Boehner (currently House speaker) after the 2010 election.
As far as “Jews are (going to be) blamed” goes, that is evidence of the atmosphere of fear which has developed in the US. There is an element in this country which wants us to remain afraid. They dominate talk radio and they dominate the Republican party.
We are Americans and we are Jews. We are not and can never allow ourselves to be driven by fear and the hatred which is a palpable result of the campaign of fear. I am not proposing that we “love our neighbor” or “turn the other cheek”, but we need not live our lives in fear.

Nonsense. Republicans are
doing what they believe is right and dems are doing the same. Every
President has had to deal with both parties, (sometimes with the
opposition ruling Congress), and the good ones have managed to get
agreement from the loyal opposition.

I ride through town and
see many closed businesses, empty houses and hear complaints from
people out of work. I’ve lost a lot, too. This happened on Obama’s
watch, not Bush’s. Reagan inherited a mess from Carter, too, but once
Reagan took over, everything changed, including our attitude.

Obama sits back, lets
things happen, and if something good happens, he takes credit. He’s
likely to be reelected. He’s more reassuring than Romney and Obama
has left the country in such a sorry state that we all need
reassuring.

Obama turned on Israel
until he realized to his surprise that unlike most lefties, many left
wing Jews actually supported Israel. He needed Jewish money to win
elections, and so he’s tried to pretend Israeli support ever since.
That’s my concern. If Jewish money helps him to win again and he
fails again, I don’t want Jews blamed for putting him back in office.

Actually, Allen, as an American, I do not appreciate your comments about the President any more than Israelis appreciate comments from the Diaspora about their politics. Obviously, whoever you are, you have no appreciation for the nuances of American politics. You want our election to be about one issue: which candidate is willing to commit America to go to war against Iran. So we have two candidates: one who has proven that he will change any position, say anything, to get elected, and one who says what he wants to do and tries. Which would you support? (remember, this is a blind taste test). Can you honestly believe that the candidate who has spent months flip-flopping on all his positions can be trusted to say what he really means?
The election in America is about more than Iran. It’s about whether, as a country, we will go forward and preserve and strengthen the social commitments which our country and much of the world (even Canada) has made to their people, or will we say “you’re on your own; if you’re middle class or lower, if you’re ill, you’re old, you’re disabled, you’re unemployed….. tough. Too bad for you.” It’s an election about whether America will promote new scientific accomplishment, or ck into creationism and pseudo-science. It’s an election about whether we will continue to always drink at the wells of the oil sheikhs and the Russian gangsters, or will we work to actually free ourselves from them and, by the way, doing our fair share to reduce CO2 emissions and slow the meltdown of the polar ice at both poles. I’d think that, as a Canadian, the melting polar ice might concern you; but if you’re a Harper supporter, I can understand.
I appreciate the threat posed by Iran. I have family and friends in Israel, and all of their families have one or more kids presently doing their service. I lost an entire branch of my family in the Holocaust. No one need remind me who the six million were. Comparing Iran today to Nazi Germany and today to 1932 dishonors the memory of the dead. Iran is a real threat, yes: but we are not on the brink of another Holocaust with no place to turn and no support but ourselves.
Hillel famously declared “If I am not for myself, who am I? And if I am ONLY for myself, what am I?” So, Allen…. what are you?

Ed, Thanks for Replying. Jews, the Jewish People and Israel have a moral and legal right to be judged according to the identical standards regularly applied with respect to other Peoples and countries in the same or similar circumstances. Thus, there is no moral, political or legal requirement for today’s Jews to be as defenseless as the Jews of the 1940’s. The comparison is not between the Jews of today and yesterday, but rather between the Iran of today and the Germany of yesterday. Iran of the ayatollahs is now in every sense as bad as Nazi Germany on the eve of the Holocaust, because the Iranian government publicly proclaims its intention to eliminate Israel and kill the 6 million Jews there. For the details, see Prime Minister Netanyahu’s September 27th speech to the UN General Assembly. There is no sense in which the memory of Holocaust victims is dishonored by comparing the Islamic Republic with Nazi Germany. To the contrary, “Never Again!” gives added meaning to the memory of the Holocaust. Apart from my worries about President Obama’s strikingly negative policies toward the Jewish People and Israel, I am neither interested in the USA election nor in the many matters that you have raised in that connection. For the moment, Canada has a Prime Minister who is remarkably supportive of the Jewish People and Israel. Prime Ministers Harper and Netanyahu get along very well together. Consequently, at this juncture, there is no sense in which my loyalties to Israel and Canada now conflict. Though I have warm feelings for the USA where I spent 6 years as a graduate student, I do not have to balance my concern for Israel’s well being with some regard for USA needs. For this reason, I am happily spared the dilemma of so many USA Jews who are committed to the Democratic Party but know that President Obama is at best stone cold to the Jewish People and Israel.

When people from other countries criticized Bush, you
never heard complaints from the Democrats. We used to be an
important country and people have a right to comment and complain
about out politics because what we do often affects the rest of the
world, especially our allies.

I’m very grateful to your government for its support
of Israel.

I don’t think Obama likes Israel. I think he needed
Jewish money to run for office. It reminds me of so many Jews who
misunderstood Carter and were shocked to learn that he hates Jews and
he hates Israel.

Hitler didn’t try to
develop atomic weapons. He considered their development “Jewish
Science.” That’s why we wound up using them on Japan. If Hitler
had atomic weapons, Germany wouldn’t have surrendered.

Anyone who thinks Iran
isn’t developing Nuclear Weapons or that Obama can stop them is a
fool. The delay is because Iran went from the 20th
century to the middle ages after overthrowing the Shah. They’re
catching up again.

Obama seems to be waiting
for Iran to get the bomb, so he can throw up his hands and say, “Who
knew?

From what I read, Einstein was astounded to discover that Germany wasn’t working on the bomb. He thought one of the German Scientists whose ability he knew would be as far along as American scientists were, but Hitler wouldn’t allow his scientists to develop something based on “Jewish Science.”
Iran is just the opposite. People view it as backward and aren’t as concerned as they should be about their scientific capability.

You know what, as i sit here in my room playing armchair general….to wit i have no basis on which to decide who is right or wrong, i have to let those in the know…ie Bibi maybe? deal with the situation… We all can pontificate all we want, sitting in the US secure and smug… but unless you are over there, stay out of their business.. Just support whatever is reasonable and right. You know opinions are like A*****h**** we all have one but some of them just schmeck more that others. Columnists will write, that is their business,,, they know no more or less than you do…. But in all honesty, saber rattling will not make the problem go away and Iranian leaders are not scared… They have no sanctity for human life.. so to them what is a million more or less dead to get rid of a few million Jews…

Haim Saban, a former Israeli, made a lot of money making toys (Ninja) and then parlayed it into even more as a private equity investor, and the chairman of the Spanish-language media company Univision Along the way, he adopted what I will politely call very left of center ideas. As a result of his huge donations, Obama nominated his wife to a UN post. http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-nominates-megadonor-haim-sabans-wife-to-un-post-136113.html Of course, the once-objective NYT did not feel any need to disclose this relevant information.

Silence?
Six million of our loved ones died in unspeakable agony – while the ‘civilized’ world
remained SILENT, and looked the other way.

It is you, Sandler, who should be silent – rather than be a media vulture,extorting a free lunch at the expense of Israel – by slandering, slighting and disrespecting our elected spokesman.
Who elected you?

Some people listen to Obama’s so-called “apologies” to Muslims and assume that’s exactly what he means. NO diplomat or politician says exactly what he means, by defintion. We all saw where cowboy-like straight-shootin’ got George W. Bush –friend to Israel, sure (though it’s Obama who sold Israel military technology that the Bush regime refused to, and Obama who threw in an extra $70 million to cover all of southern Israel with Iron Dome protection, exclusive of $3+ billion aid — but I digress). Does anyone toward the right ever consider that after years of the U.S.’s OVERT partisanship to Israel, the Mideast only got worse? Obama is being SMART in trying a different and more pragmatic approach. Everyone knows that Arab leaders and politicians lie and spout rhetoric to the public. If Obama’s so-called apologies appease just enough leaders or peasants, or even just give them pause, now or in the future, while he still has Israel’s back (see above), that’s a good thing. Because when the time comes to lay cards on the table, no one in the Arab camp will listen to word one from America if there isn’t the slightest sense that America cares one iota about the Arab agenda for their own people — not the usual “destruction of Israel” which is to be taken as a serious threat, but it should also be kept in mind is a distraction from the bully’s ineffectuality at home. The diplomacy you see is the tip of the iceberg, where a lot more is going on under the surface. There is posturing, and saber-rattling, and all sorts of stuff to fill up the news and create a public facade — and then there’s everything else going on behind the scenes. To think Obama is an open apologist like Chamberlain is naive and tunnel-visioned. An intelligent person looks at all the agendas and balances them, NOT to be “fair,” which has nothing to do with the U.S. agenda, but rather, to be smart, find the sweet spot. Strategically, it makes sense to earn points with ALL the parties involved in order to assert oneeself from a position of strength.

President Obama is worse than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain because the USA today is far stronger than was Great Britain in 1938. Moreover, at that time, British intelligence had significantly overestimated German strength and German intelligence had significantly underestimated British strength. President Obama is also worse than Neville Chamberlain because the latter admired neither Hitler nor Nazi Germany. Nor did Chamberlain publicly affirm any German roots. By contrast, President Obama has repeatedly written and spoken about his personal connections to Islam, i.e. ties of family and friendship. President Obama went to Cairo in June 2009 to deliver a speech that included strong moral condemnation of Israel and fawning praise of the Muslim world, which notably includes the Islamic Republic of Iran, Al Qaeda, Hizbullah, Salafists, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. I do not recall that Chamberlain ever delivered a speech that morally condemned Czechoslovakia and heaped adulation on Hitler and Nazi Germany. And in this regard, remember that public opinion polls consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Americans correctly perceive “the Islamic Republic” of Iran to be the USA’s deadliest enemy. President Obama works overtime to keep us believing that we must regard Islam as purely “a religion.” However, Bernard Lewis and other great scholars of the Middle East have always taught that Islam also has a decidedly “political” aspect. And, that’s exactly why there is an Organization of Islamic Cooperation with close to 60 Member States. When veteran “Cold Warrior” President Nixon went to Beijing in 1972, nobody then dared suggest that he was “soft on communism.” By contrast, President Obama seems to be obsessed with Islam, as demonstrated in his September 25th speech to the UN General Assembly. Make no mistake! The “hoi polloi” are meant to be fooled by the spectacular killing of Osama bin Laden and sundry assassinations via drone strikes. However, at home and abroad, the Obama administration is consistently dedicated to a special “reaching out” to Islam and the Muslim World, which is certainly a formula for appeasement and the betrayal of friends and allies.

It’s clear from the reporting of Bibis speech that he hit a home run. In fact the LA Times writes his “red line went viral” . Staying home would have been a major blunder.

It’s just a day after Yom Kippur I would suggest that Adam Chandler man up, and say .”al Chet”. Clearly his column was a mistake. Maybe it would have been better that he would have stayed home and not written this column.

@Adam Chandler: You answered a comment by saying (forgive to slight paraphrase please) “the PM’s speech might lead some not to take him seriously)–to whom exactly do you refer? Elsewhere you mention the boycott on Iran that leaves their oil tankers full and w/out destination. And yet the nuclear work continues. Is this not worth repeating more than once, or twice, or five times?

I’m a US citizen, and I have never heard a President dissemble so shamelessly about our crucial and necessary (redundant?) alliance w/Israel. He has made his disdain for PM Netanyahu abundantly clear. Would you have the Prime Minister of Israel prove his point with silence toward the US?

Your sort of ‘Art of War’ approach to this matter of world security is interesting. In your defense and in deference to your obvious intellect, I’ll read the piece again w/a more open mind.

So, when you can’t find anything else to condemn our Prime Minister for, you choose to condemn him for doing his job? What planet do you live on, and how in the world would staying home have sent a stronger message? In the world I live in, journalists like yourself would have been spinning his absence as irresponsible, as a slap in the face to the UN, to America, and anyone else whose turn it is to claim to be “offended” by Israel.

Name (required)Email (required, will not be published)Website (optional)

Message

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.